FYI, whilst we've mentioned NUMA-Q in these arguments, much of this
is generic to any 32 bit NUMA machine, the new x440 for example.
> I don't think it make sense to attempt breaking GFP_KERNEL semantics in
> 2.4 but for 2.5 we can change stuff so that all non-DMA users can ask
> for ZONE_NORMAL that will be backed by physical memory over 4G (that's
> fine for all inodes,dcache,files,bufferheader,kiobuf,vma and many other
> in-core data structures never accessed by hardware via DMA, it's ok even
> for the buffer cache because the lowlevel layer has the bounce buffer
> layer that is smart enough to understand when bounce buffers are needed
> on top of the physical address space pagecache).
Sounds good. Hopefully we can kill off ZONE_DMA for the old ISA stuff
at the same time except as a backwards compatibility config option that
you'd have to explicitly enable ...
> Again note that nonlinear can do nothing to help you there, the
> limitation you deal with is pci32 and the GFP API, not at all about
> discontigmem or nonlinear. we basically changed topic from here.
There are several different problems we seem to be discussing here:
1. Cleaning up discontig mem alloc for UMA machines.
2. Having a non-contiguous ZONE_NORMAL across NUMA nodes.
3. DMA addressibility of memory.
(and probably others I've missed). Nonlinear is more about the
first two, and not the third, at least to my mind.
> Personally I always had the hope to never need to see a 64G 32bit
> machine 8). I mean, even if you manage to solve the pci32bit problem
> with GFP_KERNEL, then you still have to share 800M across 16 nodes with
> 4G each. So by striping zone_normal over all the nodes to have numa-local
> data structures with fast slab allocations will get at most 50mbyte per
> node of which around 90% of this 50M will be eat by the mem_map array
> for those 50M plus the other 4G-50M.
You're assuming we're always going to globally map every struct page
into kernel address space for ever. That's a fundamental scalability
problem for a 32 bit machine, and I think we need to fix it. If we
map only the pages the process is using into the user-kernel address
space area, rather than the global KVA, we get rid of some of these
problems. Not that that plan doesn't have its own problems, but ... ;-)
Bear in mind that we've sucessfully used 64Gb of ram in a 32 bit
virtual addr space a long time ago with Dynix/PTX.
> So at the end you'll be left with
> only say 5/10M per node of zone_normal that will be filled immediatly as
> soon as you start reading some directory from disk. a few hundred mbyte
> of vfs cache is the minimum for those machines, this doesn't even take
> into account bh headers for the pagecache, physical address space
> pagecache for the buffercache, kiobufs, vma, etc...
Bufferheads are another huge problem right now. For a P4 machine, they
round off to 128 bytes per data structure. I was just looking at a 16Gb
machine that had completely wedged itself by filling ZONE_NORMAL with
unfreeable overhead - 440Mb of bufferheads alone. Globally mapping the
bufferheads is probably another thing that'll have to go.
> It's just that 1G of
> virtual address space reserved for kernel is too low to handle
> efficiently 64G of physical ram, this is a fact and you can't
> workaround it.
Death to global mappings! ;-)
I'd agree that a 64 bit vaddr space makes much more sense, but we're
stuck with the chips we've got for a little while yet. AMD were a few
years too late for the bleeding edge Intel arch people amongst us.
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to firstname.lastname@example.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue May 07 2002 - 22:00:18 EST